先进绝热压缩空气储能系统(a - caes)每日电力恢复的环境影响比较评价

Energy Storage Pub Date : 2025-05-14 DOI:10.1002/est2.70194
M. Lucas, H. Bewi Komesse, S. Duval—Dachary, D. Teixeira
{"title":"先进绝热压缩空气储能系统(a - caes)每日电力恢复的环境影响比较评价","authors":"M. Lucas,&nbsp;H. Bewi Komesse,&nbsp;S. Duval—Dachary,&nbsp;D. Teixeira","doi":"10.1002/est2.70194","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Renewable energy storage is essential to address the intermittent nature of renewable sources. Beyond widely used Li-ion batteries and Pumped Hydro Energy Storage (PHES), Advanced Adiabatic Compressed Air Energy Storage (A-CAES) offers promising potential, although it is not yet commercially available in Europe. This study evaluates the environmental impacts and exergy demand of daily electricity discharge over 30 years for both 10 and 100 MWe A-CAES systems. The 10 MW system is compared to Li-ion batteries (NMC/Graphite, LFP/Graphite, and NMC/LTO chemistries), while the 100 MW system is compared to PHES. Analyses are conducted at both endpoint (human health, ecosystems, and resources) and midpoint levels (climate change and exergy demand). Results show that the 10 and 100 MW A-CAES systems have similar or higher impacts compared to their counterparts when coupled with the French electricity grid mix. This is primarily due to the impacts associated with the electricity to be stored and round-trip efficiency losses: Li-ion batteries and the PHES system have higher efficiency (79.1% and 82%, respectively) than A-CAES systems (54.4% for the 10 MW and 70% for the 100 MW). However, when coupled with renewable sources, which have lower impacts than the French grid mix, A-CAES systems are more beneficial due to lower equipment life cycle impacts, particularly for the 10 MW A-CAES (equipment impact: 11 gCO<sub>2</sub>eq/kWh returned to the grid) compared to Li-ion batteries (equipment impact: 54 gCO<sub>2</sub>eq/kWh returned to the grid). The study highlights A-CAES as a viable long-term storage alternative within a cradle-to-grave framework, though it acknowledges limitations, such as differences in technology readiness level (TRL) and the need for measured data to strengthen comparisons with established solutions.</p>","PeriodicalId":11765,"journal":{"name":"Energy Storage","volume":"7 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/est2.70194","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Environmental Impact Assessment of a Daily Electricity Restitution Operated by Advanced Adiabatic Compressed Air Energy Storage Systems (A-CAES)\",\"authors\":\"M. Lucas,&nbsp;H. Bewi Komesse,&nbsp;S. Duval—Dachary,&nbsp;D. Teixeira\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/est2.70194\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Renewable energy storage is essential to address the intermittent nature of renewable sources. Beyond widely used Li-ion batteries and Pumped Hydro Energy Storage (PHES), Advanced Adiabatic Compressed Air Energy Storage (A-CAES) offers promising potential, although it is not yet commercially available in Europe. This study evaluates the environmental impacts and exergy demand of daily electricity discharge over 30 years for both 10 and 100 MWe A-CAES systems. The 10 MW system is compared to Li-ion batteries (NMC/Graphite, LFP/Graphite, and NMC/LTO chemistries), while the 100 MW system is compared to PHES. Analyses are conducted at both endpoint (human health, ecosystems, and resources) and midpoint levels (climate change and exergy demand). Results show that the 10 and 100 MW A-CAES systems have similar or higher impacts compared to their counterparts when coupled with the French electricity grid mix. This is primarily due to the impacts associated with the electricity to be stored and round-trip efficiency losses: Li-ion batteries and the PHES system have higher efficiency (79.1% and 82%, respectively) than A-CAES systems (54.4% for the 10 MW and 70% for the 100 MW). However, when coupled with renewable sources, which have lower impacts than the French grid mix, A-CAES systems are more beneficial due to lower equipment life cycle impacts, particularly for the 10 MW A-CAES (equipment impact: 11 gCO<sub>2</sub>eq/kWh returned to the grid) compared to Li-ion batteries (equipment impact: 54 gCO<sub>2</sub>eq/kWh returned to the grid). The study highlights A-CAES as a viable long-term storage alternative within a cradle-to-grave framework, though it acknowledges limitations, such as differences in technology readiness level (TRL) and the need for measured data to strengthen comparisons with established solutions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11765,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Energy Storage\",\"volume\":\"7 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/est2.70194\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Energy Storage\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/est2.70194\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Energy Storage","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/est2.70194","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

可再生能源存储对于解决可再生能源的间歇性至关重要。除了广泛使用的锂离子电池和抽水蓄能(PHES)之外,先进绝热压缩空气储能(A-CAES)也有很大的潜力,尽管它尚未在欧洲商业化。本研究评估了10兆瓦和100兆瓦A-CAES系统30年的日放电对环境的影响和能源需求。10兆瓦的系统与锂离子电池(NMC/石墨、LFP/石墨和NMC/LTO化学)相比,而100兆瓦的系统与PHES相比。分析在两个端点(人类健康、生态系统和资源)和中点水平(气候变化和能源需求)进行。结果表明,与法国电网组合相比,10兆瓦和100兆瓦的A-CAES系统具有相似或更高的影响。这主要是由于与存储的电力和往返效率损失相关的影响:锂离子电池和PHES系统的效率(分别为79.1%和82%)高于A-CAES系统(10兆瓦为54.4%,100兆瓦为70%)。然而,当与可再生能源相结合时,A-CAES系统比法国电网的影响更小,因为设备生命周期的影响更小,特别是对于10兆瓦的A-CAES(设备影响:11 gco2当量/千瓦时返回电网)相比锂离子电池(设备影响:54 gco2当量/千瓦时返回电网)。该研究强调了a - caes在从摇篮到坟墓的框架内作为一种可行的长期储存替代方案,尽管它承认存在局限性,例如技术准备水平(TRL)的差异以及需要测量数据来加强与现有解决方案的比较。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative Environmental Impact Assessment of a Daily Electricity Restitution Operated by Advanced Adiabatic Compressed Air Energy Storage Systems (A-CAES)

Renewable energy storage is essential to address the intermittent nature of renewable sources. Beyond widely used Li-ion batteries and Pumped Hydro Energy Storage (PHES), Advanced Adiabatic Compressed Air Energy Storage (A-CAES) offers promising potential, although it is not yet commercially available in Europe. This study evaluates the environmental impacts and exergy demand of daily electricity discharge over 30 years for both 10 and 100 MWe A-CAES systems. The 10 MW system is compared to Li-ion batteries (NMC/Graphite, LFP/Graphite, and NMC/LTO chemistries), while the 100 MW system is compared to PHES. Analyses are conducted at both endpoint (human health, ecosystems, and resources) and midpoint levels (climate change and exergy demand). Results show that the 10 and 100 MW A-CAES systems have similar or higher impacts compared to their counterparts when coupled with the French electricity grid mix. This is primarily due to the impacts associated with the electricity to be stored and round-trip efficiency losses: Li-ion batteries and the PHES system have higher efficiency (79.1% and 82%, respectively) than A-CAES systems (54.4% for the 10 MW and 70% for the 100 MW). However, when coupled with renewable sources, which have lower impacts than the French grid mix, A-CAES systems are more beneficial due to lower equipment life cycle impacts, particularly for the 10 MW A-CAES (equipment impact: 11 gCO2eq/kWh returned to the grid) compared to Li-ion batteries (equipment impact: 54 gCO2eq/kWh returned to the grid). The study highlights A-CAES as a viable long-term storage alternative within a cradle-to-grave framework, though it acknowledges limitations, such as differences in technology readiness level (TRL) and the need for measured data to strengthen comparisons with established solutions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信